SANFORD, Fla. — In an unmistakable setback for George Zimmerman, the jury at the neighborhood watch captain's second-degree murder trial was given the option Thursday of convicting him on the lesser charge of manslaughter in the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

Judge Debra Nelson issued her ruling over the objections of Zimmerman's lawyers shortly before a prosecutor delivered a closing argument in which he portrayed the defendant as an aspiring police officer who assumed Martin was up to no good and took the law into his own hands.

"A teenager is dead. He is dead through no fault of his own," prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda told the jurors. "He is dead because a man made assumptions. ... Unfortunately because his assumptions were wrong, Trayvon Benjamin Martin no longer walks this Earth."

Because of the judge's ruling, the six jurors will have three options when they start deliberations as early as Friday: guilty of second-degree murder, guilty of manslaughter and not guilty.

Defense attorney Don West had argued for an all-or-nothing strategy, saying the jury's only options should be guilty of second-degree murder or not guilty altogether.

"The state has charged him with second-degree murder. They should be required to prove it," West said. "If they had wanted to charge him with manslaughter ... they could do that."

To win a second-degree murder conviction, prosecutors must prove Zimmerman showed ill will, hatred or spite — a burden the defense has argued the state failed to meet. To get a manslaughter conviction, prosecutors must show only that Zimmerman killed without lawful justification.

Allowing the jurors to consider manslaughter could give those who aren't convinced the shooting amounted to murder a way to hold Zimmerman responsible for the death of the unarmed teen, said David Hill, an Orlando defense attorney with no connection to the case.

"From the jury's point of view, if they don't like the second-degree murder — and I can see why they don't like it — he doesn't want to give them any options to convict on lesser charges," Hill said of West.

Because of the way Florida law imposes longer sentences for crimes committed with a gun, manslaughter could end up carrying a penalty as heavy as the one for second-degree murder: life in prison.

It is standard for prosecutors in Florida murder cases to ask that the jury be allowed to consider lesser charges that were not actually brought against the defendant. And it is not unusual for judges to grant such requests.

Prosecutor Richard Mantei also asked that the jury be allowed to consider third-degree murder, on the premise that Zimmerman committed child abuse when he shot the underage Martin. Zimmerman's lawyer called that "bizarre" and "outrageous," and the judge sided with the defense.

Zimmerman, 29, got into a scuffle with Martin after spotting the teen while driving through his gated townhouse complex on a rainy night in February 2012. Zimmerman has claimed he fired in self-defense after Martin sucker-punched him and began slamming his head into the pavement. Prosecutors have disputed his account and have portrayed him as the aggressor.

During closing arguments, de la Rionda argued that Zimmerman showed ill will and hatred when he whispered profanities to a police dispatcher over his cellphone while following Martin through the neighborhood. He said Zimmerman "profiled" the teenager as a criminal.

"He assumed Trayvon Martin was a criminal," de la Rionda said. "That is why we are here."

The prosecutor told the jury that Zimmerman wanted to be a police officer and that's why he followed Martin. But "the law doesn't allow people to take the law into their own hands," de la Rionda said.

Join the Discussion:

Previous Discussion: 16 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

If Zimmerman prevails, this will set dangerous precedents. Women take self-defense courses and are taught to walk to their cars with their keys out. They are to fight and not be passive. Never allow yourself to be forced into a car. Fight to the death, because your likely to be killed. Now, if an attacker intent on killing a woman, approaches her at night while she is alone, and begins his unprovoked attack, and she fights back and gains the upper hand, he can be legally justified in killing her ( which was his goal) because he " was scared for his life" . Trayvon was walking back from the store with skittles.... Zimmerman had no cause to do any pursuing whatsoever. He witnessed no crime.

When you call the police and they say "OK, we don't need you to do that" that means that if you do, you are culpable. Period. Otherwise, we have a lot clowns like Zimmerman trying to play cop for ego gratification in their spare time.

"They are to fight and not be passive"------They are to fight back if physically accosted. There is no evidence that GZ laid his hands on TM first. They are not told to throw a first punch if they think they are just being followed. Your argument leaves out key facts

"approaches her at night while she is alone, and begins his unprovoked attack"--------again, garbage. There is NO evidence that supports GZ "began an unprovoked attack" on TM. Following is not attacking. Read the law.

any normal person will take 3 possible courses of action if they think they are being followed. One is to run away. Run to your car. Run to your house. Another is to call 911. Another is to confront verbally and demand to know if they are being followed. The person who takes it upon themselves to throw a first punch, tackle or blindside someone they "think" is following them is likely in for a world of hurt. That's not "defending yourself" in the eyes of the law.

When you call the police and they say "OK, we don't need you to do that" that means that if you do, you are culpable. Period. ---------------More nonsense from those obviously not following the trial or testimony. After being told he didn't need to follow he said OK. Evidence points to the idea that GZ was attacked while walking back. There is no evidence that supports the idea that GZ continued following after being advised not to. Prosecution has never suggested GZ physically attacked TM first. You can't throw a punch at someone you "think" is following you. TM should have continued home. His decision to backtrack back to GZ and confront him physically is what eventually led to his death.

Ok notacon. I asked a couple of the Metro officers who were on property today and they confirmed that "they don't NEED you to drive your car anywhere".

So I'm assuming that by your "logic" you are accepting full culpability for anything that ever happens in the future while you are driving. If someone else runs into your car....it's your fault because the police said that they "don't need you to" be driving.

TomD: what nonsense. Every indication that treyvon was trying to get home. Zero proof Treyvon threw the first punch. What we do know for absolute certainty is that treyvon was walking home with skittles and was pursued, for no reason, by a man with a gun. Those facts are indisputable. If GZ didn't pursue, no dead kid. A wannebe cop with verbally expressed ill will towards black kids.

notacon you are wrong. No dispatcher is a police officer. Z was never told by someone of authority to back off. End of story.

All evidence shows Z to be innocent. Even officers questioned proves Z's innocent. This trial is a travesty. The judge is showing prejudice and this trial should have never happened. It only was brought up becuase of Sharpton and Jacksons, not to mention the presidents involvment.

TomD: no evidence he pursued? Really? The only evidence was GZ's own admission that he did persue....just that.. His own lawyers admitted it. Talk about not following the case. Surely your not arguing that if you're walking at night, and and a car is creeping along following you, and then guy gets out and comes toward you the confrontation is your fault. GZ was looking for a fight. He has 6 months of MMA training and he was carrying. Heady stuff for the big tough neighborhood watchman. Dead teenager as a result. TM was doing nothing wrong to be pursued. But dead.

@CreatedEQLYou have no concept of the law. The testimony at hand is that TM threw a first punch at GZ. You can either believe that or not. Your choice. The only witness to the event is GZ who's testimony has been called credible and believable by the lead investigator. Believe what you will. Trayvon was being followed. This is not illegal.

Forget GZ calling the police. Forget Trayvon and his skittles. Forget the iced tea. The sole question for the jury will be whether or not TM threw a first punch at GZ, knocked him down, got on top and was beating down on him. From there, GZ coud defend himself with a weapon. Even the prosecution has conceded that TM may have been on top of GZ. All the other crap about "child", "skittles", "iced tea" is utterly meaningless to how the jury will decide this case.

I can't help you if you simply don't understand the law and the laws of self defense.

@CreatedThere's no evidence he pursued AFTER being advised not to..nice try. Try following my statement and stop making stuff up.

"Surely your not arguing that if you're walking at night, and and a car is creeping along following you, and then guy gets out and comes toward you the confrontation is your fault. GZ was looking for a fight."--------Too bad that's not what testimony evidence suggests. Try staying on the facts. GZ had stopped following and was walking back when TM came from behind him and threw a punch. FAR different from the mythical scenario you suggest. You have no facts.

TomD. The lawyers conceded GZ pursued AFTER being told not to. Treyvon was not coming out a window, or carrying a TV. GZ had no reason to follow. There is zero proof that Treyvon threw the first punch. There is no proof of any of GZ's statements. There is a dead kid who was doing nothing more than walking home. I understand the law. If this case sets precedent, every single fist fight, regardless of who starts it, can result in justifiable deadly force. A concealed weapon+ "I was scared" is all it takes. What a world. Forget GZ, forget TM, if he goes free this makes all of us less safe.

Folks can't get passed black. Had the 17 year old been a girl who looked like Barbie, walking home from the store at night with her skittles, and a guy was following her movements in a car, then got out and pursued her. When she got scared and confronted him, and he got close enough to her to be within striking range and she somehow got the upper hand and was wailing on him......then all of a sudden folks don't believe she should be shot thru the heart. Don't walk while being black, it's too dangerous.

Show me the testimony where GZ lawyers admitted he continued to follow TM after being advised not to. That's simply not on the testimony record.

It's been put upon the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That simply can't happen if they will not lay out in detail their version of the physical confrontation and who punched or hit or accosted who first. You don't know the law.

The defense was willing to put out a detailed version of the events as they see them. Let the prosecution do the same. Simple fact is that the prosecution has refused to lay out the details of how this became a physical rather than verbal confrontation.

TomD. The lawyers conceded GZ pursued AFTER being told not to.-----------This is what you said. "The LAWYERS conceded GZ pursued AFTER being told not to"..

GZ lawyers have NOT conceded this issue. You're lying.

Now you say it's the police who said this? Your first post implied the lawyers conceded he followed, which means his own lawyers conceded this? Wrong. The prosecution lawyers can't "concede" this point but only assert it. They also cannot prove it.

TomD: here's another article stating the defense conceded that GZ followed TZ. http://iowapublicradio.org/post/defenses.... The police also said he ignored instructions. Sheesh. Then, the defense made a point of indicating its not against the law to follow someone. It's really pretty simple. GZ stalked a 17 yo who committed no crime, both in his car and on foot that provoked a physical confrontation. Then, when GZ was getting the worst of it, he shot TM thru the heart. I'm not a liar, and I don't ridiculously split hairs. I'm a very calm non violent person. You throw out "liar" very freely. Not everyone is like me. Someone may one day get mad and punch you. I hope you don't get the best of him at any point, because he/she may "become scared" and have to kill you. Have a nice day.

Actually CreatedEQL, even the most recent article you linked to does *NOT* support your claim.

It quotes NPR's Greg Allen as saying "He called the police, and then defense did concede this week that Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin, although the question is how far did he follow him?"

1. That's Greg Allen's opinion. Notice the lack of any direct quote of a defense attorney saying anything about it.

2. It still says nothing about GZ following Martin AFTER the police told him they didn't need him to do that (which is what you claimed)

Here's a link to HLN's live blog of the trial. Feel free to go back day by day and point out to us the spot where a defense attorney "conceded that GZ followed TZ" after being told he didn't need to do so.

The loss of life at any age is tragic, but the loss of a young person's life has far more reaching dimensions of lost opportunity. What TM could have become, his future accomplishments, his yet to be known relevance upon our world, all this and more are some thinks that will never be known of his being.

Sorrow and condolences for the family and the loved one who TM touched in his short lived live. Rest assured it is only you who knew him close that can attest to his being and the choices he made in life; RIP.

The Night Watchman- GZ, is just as is TM, given any scenario, because it doesn't end good, because after it is all said and done life has been lost.

The over shadowing question is will justice truly be served, I needn't remind folks that justice is blind, and that matter-of-factness rather than a rush to judgment is needed here. The court system in the eye of history is being bruised, by abuse of power and disregard for state's rights once the Fed over stepped.

I suppose, it can be said that if GZ is innocent then the trial will find that to be the case, no harm or foul. No, in the investigation GZ was found to be with the law in the first place and this now is tantamount to double jeopardy. This is a mockery of all that is believed to be fair in America, one of America's pillars-The Judicial Branch.

I could not, I would not, want knowing full well of the injustice garnered me if I were to be given an unfair or even prejudicial award. Especially, as they say the unrest associated with our actions in the here and now.

One condition that warrants mentioning is paranoia, the effect it has on folks and how some of the most malignant thought of circumstances are really of inconsequence.

Teamster as usual places blame on Republicans. TEAMSTER this a legal thing not a political thing like you and your ilk make it out to be. Neighborhood watch CAN carry guns! PERIOD! A dispatcher is NOT an officer. PERIOD! The reason this even went to trial is because our illustrious president said. "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" Racebaiter to the tenth and if someone gets hurt after GZ is acquitted Obama has that on his hands. PERIOD!

Determined to kill an innocent stranger, a man dials 911, stays on the phone while stalking his victim, remains at the crime scene rather than fleeing, surrenders his Miranda rights and voluntarily answers hundreds of police questions.

Liberals will play the race card anyway, it's the only one in their deck.

As a neighborhood watch, I follow little old ladies around. Little old ladies are on a crime surge, running rampant through communities, doing anti-cholesterol drugs, burglarizing homes and holding the occupants in hostage situations, forcing tea and cookies down their throats. They must be stopped!

profiling is nothing more than a summary of a person's characteristics. That in and of itself is not abhorrent behavior, it is when someone uses a person's outwardly surveillance appearance and concludes a prejudiced position like calling a person a "cr***er" when they are outside of the cr***er definition or to refer to someone as Irish because they are eating a potato. The purpose of profiling is to enhance the identification of a person's makeup, whereby narrowing the selection of choice or discounting others from a pool of latent predilection.

What I ask is how are we to live hence this day forward, is crime prevention limited to locks or can we only wait till after the crime to prove guilt for fear of using a profile. I say batten down the hatches against crime, crime is not wanted here or anywhere in America, we need to be clear that under the law we will stand our ground, today and every day until it is ham-fistedly known as the law of the land.

Ahhh, HELLO. BAU FBI used PROFILING as a TOOL to solve / prevent violent crime. Profiling is a GOOD THING. DISCRIMINATION is part of profiling. Agreed, ANYTHING can be misapplied but let's not refuse to use all the tools and intelligence available.

Sympathy for the prosecutors: Obama and Holder (talk about RACISM) seem to have sent DOJ stormtroopers to Florida to force the arrest and demonstrations DESPITE the Chief of Police and investigators saying there was NO CASE ON Z. So you want to be the guy(s) who try to or actually convict an innocent man. And even with total acquittal, Z and family are forever in fear of retaliation.

Rusty, please stop stalking me (joke). As a former LEO, I have some methods to those foolish burglars. Doesn't mean I can't see myself in Z's seat someday. Now, IF Z were a Metro Officer....would we have this waste of money, this unconscionable abuse of public funds and of citizens?

The problem for the defense is the idea that the jury might give a "sympathy" verdict of manslaughter, thereby acquitting him of 2nd degree but still punishing him. OMara has alluded to this several times in interviews. GZ could serve just as much time under a manslaughter charge.

The prosecutor yelling his closing argument at the jurors was insulting. Screaming is the quickest way to turn people off of your argument.

I carried a weapon for years in a similar size and holster that Zimmerman used. If you are on your back on the ground you can not see the weapon or the holster. I say Zimmerman is lieing about Martin reaching for his weapon. I also heard Zimmerman say Martin jump out of the bushes and attacked him. In another version he then said he was looking off in another direction and then turned around to see Martin approach him. Zimmerman already had the mindset Martin was some sort of criminal when he said, "These a$$holes always get away." According to Zimmerman Martin's dieing words were "You got me." If that isn't from a movie script I don'y know what else is.

What is the truth here?

If "Stand Your Ground" means you can shoot someone in self defense, can it be defined as self defense if you beat the crap out of someone who was stalking you?

Judicial Watch said Wednesday that it "has obtained documents in response to local, state, and federal records requests revealing that a little-known unit of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Community Relations Service (CRS), was deployed to Sanford, Fla., following the Trayvon Martin shooting to help organize and manage rallies and protests against George Zimmerman."

That's a pretty explosive charge. "Not only did we have a public statement by the President that might have tainted the jury pool," says Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, "but now we find the Department of Justice was involved in, basically, organizing a lynch mob?"

No, Vernos, no that would NOT be self defense. You can use whatever force is needed to STOP the attack. Further, STALKING is a lot more than following--there must be repeated occasions where the stalker SEEKS OUT the stalkee.

O'Mara is solid. Congenial and friendly. The cue ball prosecutor had the most annoying closing. High pitched yelling and squealing.

2nd degree is off the table IMO. I guess manslaughter is possible if the jury feels they need to come back with something.

The case of guilt or innocence begins at the confrontation. The skittles mean nothing. GZ calling the dispatcher means nothing. Following means nothing. The case of guilt or acquittal BASED ON LAW begins at the physical confrontation. The prosecutor has never laid out their version of what physically happened.